K.P.RAGHAVAN PILLAI Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order in I.A. 1075/2006 in A.S. 24/2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg. The appeal was dismissed for default and an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of C.P.C for re -admission of the appeal. It also met with the same fate and therefore the appellant has come up in appeal against that order.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for both sides. The reason averred in the application is that the appellant was suffering from cataract and he could not contact the advocate as a result of which, the counsel reported no instructions which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. It is a settled proposition of law that as far as possible the matters should be heard on merits. In the decision reported in Sreedhara Kurup v. Mickel [1968 KLT 599] it has been held that: